Plenty of TV shows have focused on working-class families. My Name is Earl, Roseanne, and The Middle—to name a few—all shed light on the modern American struggle to make ends meet. And they all have one main goal: making people laugh.

Last year, a new series premiered that, on the surface, has a lot in common with these other working-class sitcoms. Shameless, which airs Sunday nights on Showtime, follows a family of seven in Chicago's South Side. While Frank, the alcoholic father, spends his days and money getting drunk, the other members of the family must fend for themselves physically, financially, and emotionally. Despite their father being a champion for the sloshed, the six kids somehow manage to remain a family—though a highly dysfunctional one.

But Shameless reinvents this type of show by relying on both humor and poignant sentimentality—it's aiming for the funny bone and the heart.

Yes, humor plays a critical role. Shameless entertains, it tickles. The opening credits show each Gallagher going about their routine, one at a time, in the communal bathroom. Fiona wriggles down a lacy thong before peeing, Ian jacks off to porn, and the toddler dunks his toothbrush in the toilet before brushing. Each family member's interaction with the same dirty commode spotlessly reveals each personality and the family as a whole—a concept most artistically and visually hysterical. I laughed just as hard before the season premiere as the season finale.

But the humor does not negate the poverty-stricken environment or complex relationships. The writers are not afraid to show the squalid environment in which the Gallagher family lives or the fierce, genuine emotions felt by each character. This is precisely where My Name is Earl, Roseanne, and The Middle fall short. Through a pioneering blend of comedy and raw disclosure, Shameless successfully connects audiences to a more real American actuality—a noteworthy and rare accomplishment in the history of the working-class sitcom.

As proof, let's compare some of the characters in these shows:

Fiona Gallagher (Shameless) vs. Roseanne (Roseanne)

Though both represent the maternal caregiver, the characterization of the women could not be more different. Fiona is a young adult forced to be mom, trying her best to concoct a mixture of the life of a 25- year-old with that of a 55-year-old. As a result, Fiona has wild sex against the family's peeling countertop with a stranger she meets while clubbing, but wakes up at seven to sign field trip permission slips and water-down the milk so it remains only slightly lumpy through another family breakfast. Rather than just seeing the humor in her absurd actions, audiences also recognize the signals of poverty and fierce familial loyalty.

Like Fiona, Roseanne also represents the working-class of Illinois. However, Roseanne Conner is a middle-aged mother. Her age deems her matriarchal role more standard. This difference between the two characters is the root cause of sentimentality in Shameless. While Roseanne does combine humor and sentiment, she does so within the customary family blueprint. A 20-something taking on the maternal role usually reserved for a 40-something is novel for the working-class sitcom. It openly reveals family disconnection—partially due to the Gallagher's economic situation. As a result, Fiona's actions within the matriarch role wrenches heart strings, while Roseanne's actions within the role only gently tug at them.

Frank Gallagher (Shameless) vs. Earl Hickey (My Name Is Earl)

Frank Gallagher is one of the most appallingly uproarious characters I have encountered on the small screen. His inebriated antics exasperate, disgust, and amuse. How does this character contribute to Shameless's novelty as a working-class sitcom that reveals equal amounts of truthful emotion and humor?

Frank's relentless failure to perform as a father, friend, and decent human being brings humiliation on the rest of the Gallagher family. He puts his children at risk of severe debt by cashing the pension checks of a dead relative for booze—despite Fiona's attempts to save for her siblings' education. Laughter fills living rooms when Frank uses the Gallagher toddler for increased pan-handling success. Those same living rooms are suddenly silent when Frank's ten-year-old daughter covers her drunk, passed-out father with a ragged blanket each evening.

The comparison of Frank and Earl is similar to that of Roseanne and Fiona. Frank's displacement from his family inspires more feeling in audiences than Earl's consistent presence within his family and circle of friends. Though Earl, the protagonist of the series, has been married and divorced multiple times, he still keeps in touch with his ex-wife. While Frank is incapable of acting like a responsible adult due to his alcoholism, Earl takes control by attempting to atone up for his previous sins. Audiences never see Frank apologize to his children or attend AA. He constantly blames others for his woes and refuses to take responsibility for his actions. Viewers become upset and disappointed with Frank. Earl's proactive actions, framed in a red neck and lighthearted context, classify him as more comedic and unserious.

Lip Gallagher (Shameless) vs. Axl Heck (The Middle)

The eldest Gallagher son is similar to his oldest sister, Fiona, in that the family relies upon him as a father figure due to Frank's lack of presence. Despite this pressure, Lip manages to retain aspects of his hormonal teenage boyhood. His algebra tutoring sessions more closely resemble biology when his female tutee offers up sexual favors. Lip contributes to the family income by selling pot from a pastel-colored ice cream truck—fooling cops into thinking he provides cold treats to sweaty customers. While Lip has his share of hysterical situations, he also displays moments of blatant emotion. Though uncommon for many teenage males, Lip's flashes of unaffected feeling are debatably due to his involuntary patriarchal role and meager circumstances. When Lip finds gay porn under his younger brother's mattress, he accepts and respects the discovery rather than committing to the predictable heterosexual teenage male reaction of disgust or discomfort.

Axl Heck also plays the role of the eldest brother in The Middle. Unlike Lip Gallagher, who often takes on patriarchal responsibilities due to Frank's absence, Axl is solely a son and brother. Similar to the comparison of Fiona and Roseanne, Lip's requirement to step up to the plate as a father figure to his siblings charges his actions with sentiment. Yet, unlike Fiona and Roseanne, Axl and Lip are the same age. Ultimately, Frank's paternal nonexistence is what causes the two teenage boys to be characterized so differently. Axl is a stereotypical teenage boy. He is lethargic at home (despite his jock status at high school) and often unpleasant to his family. Though Axl does have sporadic, short-lived moments of tenderness, his stable home life and economic situation arguably enable him to live up to the stereotype. In fact, Axl's mother often becomes nostalgic when recalling how affectionate and caring Axl was as a child. While Axl is constantly troubling his mother with 95 percent sarcasm and 5 percent sentimentality, Lip vigilantly defends and supports Fiona.

These comparisons show how Shameless combines a unique combination of sentiment and comedy. This increased sentiment is generated through the writer's willingness to display family turmoil and poverty. In a history marked by working-class sitcoms like Roseanne, My Name is Earl, and The Middle,we have yet to see a series that makes an effort to reveal more candid emotion versus overly-charged humor within a disadvantaged ambience. By refusing to tip-toe around poverty and familial havoc, the writers of Shameless are bringing their audience step closer connecting with the non-fictional millions trying to make ends meet.

About the Author

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.